UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PABLO RIVERA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:13-cr-00014-TMC-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: November 5, 2013

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, Max B. Cauthen, III, Assistant Attorney General, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pablo Rivera-Martinez pled guilty to illegal reentry 

by a previously deported alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006). His 

Guidelines range was 41-51 months, and he was sentenced to 

forty-one months in prison. Rivera-Martinez appeals, arguing 

that the district court erred because it failed to explain why 

it rejected his request for a lower sentence. We affirm. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). As part of this review, we must consider whether 

the district court adequately explained the selected sentence. 

Id. In this regard, the district court “must place on the 

record an individualized assessment based on the particular 

facts of the case.” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 321, 330 

(4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a 

defendant “presents nonfrivolous reasons” for a sentence 

different than the one imposed, the court is expected to provide 

at least a “brief explanation” of the reasons for rejecting the 

defendant’s request. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 

(2007). 

We hold that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing the presumptively reasonable, 

within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. 

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). In 
3

selecting the sentence, the district court carefully applied 

various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors. The 

court took into account Rivera-Martinez’s “significant” criminal 

history, the circumstances of the instant offense, his 

demonstrated lack of respect for the laws of this country, and 

the need for the federal government to protect the integrity and 

sovereignty of its borders. 

Rivera-Martinez asked for a sentence below the 

Guidelines range based on his claimed need to provide for his 

five children, who reside in Mexico. The district court stated 

that it sympathized with Rivera-Martinez’s desire to support his 

children. However, the court found that, based on all the 

circumstances, a sentence within the Guidelines range was 

appropriate. 

We conclude that the district court sufficiently 

explained its decision to sentence Rivera-Martinez within the 

properly calculated Guidelines range. It is apparent that the 

court considered but rejected the request for a variant sentence 

upon the determination that, on balance, application of various 

sentencing factors warranted a forty-one-month sentence. We 

also hold that the within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally 

and substantively reasonable, and we accordingly affirm. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED